This story about a new type of sleeping pill does a better job than the HealthDay story we also reviewed of alerting readers in the first 6 words that it was just an animal experiment. However, there is less independent perspective provided than in the HealthDay story. Both stories make clear that the research was done by the company seeking FDA approval for a similar drug. And like the other story, this one fails to tell readers that this experiment did not test the sort of next-day hangover effect that hits many users of currently available drugs. It is puzzling, too, that neither story asks why these side effect questions apparently were not addressed in the human studies Merck submitted to the FDA.
Journalists need to check the evidence against the claims. In this case, the primary concern mentioned is next-day hangovers caused by sleeping pills, but the experiment tested performance on midnight memory tests, a different matter. And whereas the story stated that the researchers “wanted to find out what would happen if someone is awakened on the drug,” that someone was only a rat or monkey in the newly reported trial.
Even though the drug maker has already applied for FDA approval to market a similar drug, there is no discussion of how much it will cost.
This study was in animals and the researchers note that tests will have to be done in people to see if there are similar results. The researchers also note that this animal experiment did not look at the “hangover” effects that many patients complain about. The story gives readers the impression that there is much more known about benefits than was actually tested in this experiment – especially with the lead saying the drug “may cause fewer side effects”…letting a researcher say “These treatments work by forcing the brain to go to sleep” (when the jury is still out on whether/how well they work…etc.
There is one quote noting that further testing will need to be done to look for rare complications, including narcolepsy-like symptoms, but the story does not mention other side effects, such as sleep walking, balance issues, etc. About a similar drug, Suvorexant, it states that the most common side effects have been headache and sleepiness – but no data are provided.
Throughout, the story is not clear in differentiating between Suvorexant and the similar drug tested in the latest trial – DORA-22. Suvorexant is mentioned in the second sentence but it is NOT the drug studied in the trial being reported on.
The lead sentence claims that this animal study indicated the new drug “may help induce sleep without causing the memory loss and attention problems sometimes seen in the commonly used drugs Ambien and Lunesta.” However, the researchers wrote that the “current study design is limited in that it does not address the issue of next-day “hangover” or carryover effects.” In other words, this study did not look at the kinds of problems that the story says it did.
The medical literature contains a wide range of insomnia estimates. The 10% figure used in the story matches many estimates.
The story does report that the researchers work for Merck, the company applying for approval to sell a similar drug. The story would have been better if it had included comments from an interview with an independent source (as did the HealthDay story we also reviewed), rather than just an excerpt of a journal commentary article.
There is no mention of the many non-drug strategies for dealing with insomnia.
The story reports that Merck has applied for FDA approval of a similar drug.
The story does describe how this drug works on a different part of the sleep-wake mechanism in our brains than currently-available drugs. However, it is odd that there is no mention of results from the human clinical trials that must have preceded Merck’s FDA approval application.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like